as soon as you make it different where the PoW is easier (EG algo change)
the algo's wont match. so your blocks would get rejected within 2 seconds of being seen.

if you just tried to mine your chain at a constant low difficulty to get to block 5***** to surpass bitcoins block height. it wont matter. because bitcoin nodes will have a higher accumulation of the hashes security and would again reject blocks/blockchains displaying less security

a commodity is a physical raw material that is used to produce products

what you are asking is for commodity backed crypto asset.
the problem is that when a commodity is sold to produce a product. the crypto asset needs to be destroyed/taken out of circulation.
which on a blockchain where you cant actually destroy the crypto asset out of existence.
what ends up occuring is archiving cryptoassets that are (at commodities sale) locked permanently from being used

in real life scenario the time between growing/gathering -> selling the commodity vs the utility of a blockchain to record the sale of the backed crypto asset. makes blockchain not a viable use of the technology.

there are other similar technologies where a immutable endless chain is not the requirement but where block 'ties' (temporary block links) allow similar function but allow blocks to be taken out of use after time.

......
bitcoin however has got a underlaying value backing it. that value is the cost of mining it.
it has always been the case ever since day one.

the issue is not the underlying value. but the speculation (profit margin) above the underlying value. which does change depending on many things.

the reason gold (as a asset(separate market than the commodity)) is somewhat stable. is because its been around for thousands of years and has got boring.

bitcoins speculation is volatile because its new and less that 1% of the population know/have it. so sudden surges and sell offs happen easily because its alot more influenced by a small userbase and alot of emotion due to over promises, hype, emotion and then when the emotion passes. the price moves just as quickly

they are locked up on the bitcoin network. not spendable on the bitcoin network

then on the separate network called lightning. people then play with unconfirmed/ unaudited 12 decimal transactions pegged to the locked value.

on the separate network known as lightning. the future will be that exchanges will be the co-signer of the main vaults. that way without using the bitcoin network. people can use the separate network to arbitrage 'route' the pegged funds between different different exchanges.
(as long as the 'routes' are online/have funds available/agree on it)

you have no clue
scaling ONCHAIN can happen in many ways.
      ... its you thats stuck in the echochamber that if people are not fluffy clouding LN then they must be big blockers
      ... i have mentions many different ways.
      ... pushing people off to another network is not scaling the network. its de-populating the network

get out of your echo chamber. the rhetoric of LN or bigblocks is not the only option. but your stuck in that mindset as your only argument/rebuttal. and yes do some research


like the 35% for segwit1x...... which would have just died.. but didnt because of the august 1st controversy
(again dont try denying it didnt happen even your kings admit it did, they even admit they instigated it)

i even said. if your kings went with segwit2x(segwit2mb variant) back in 2016 there would have been no controversy
i even said. if your kings went with segwit2x(NYA agreement) in 2017 there would have been no controversy

but nah. 35% was not good enough so (ADMITTED BY THE DEVS) august 1st did push it through and without people needing to upgrade as it was a 'mandatory inflight upgrade(your kings words) bilateral fork(your kings words) or as you prefer "compatible"
all meaning non consensus needed as no opt-in was required(no upgrade needed)

calling it a "bitcoin scaling solution"
calling it a "bitcoin layer"

you your fluffy cloud crew trying to say its something only for bitcoin..

atleast be clear that its a separate network (emphases is clear in the N of LN)
be clear that LN's purpose is to take transaction utility away from the bitcoin blockchain.

and as for your other offtopic ramblings. yes you have many times on many topics rambled about how you prefer people to F**K off rather than mention/discuss things that are opposing to the roadmap.

there is TOO much optimism from you pink fluffy cloud unicorn snake oil sales men

some people want to know the negatives
i know you love the echo chamber of over promises and under commitments. but others dont.
have you even used LN yourself yet??

CAN vs NEED
eg to avoid third party factories in LN your will NEED to be a master node of LN
but you CAN just be a phone app spv user.

CAN vs NEED
eg to avoid third party services in  bitcoin your CAN do so still without the NEED to be a full node of bitcoin
but you CAN just be a full node user.
but you CAN just be a phone app spv user.

because you dont NEED to monitor the blockchain to send a payment on bitcoin if your just a single users the NEED for everyone to be a full node is less required, even to avoid third party services you do not NEED to run a full node

its the same thing as also mentioned in other topics. if bandwidth is limited its better if you can reduce the node connections to reduce your bandwdith usage as slow internet users dont NEED to have 100 connections to other nodes on the bitcoin network. and infact having 100 connections to other nodes on the bitcoin network is not helping bitcoin propogation/latency but actually hurting it.

my points is not that LN should not be used. but that its not:
bitcoins solution to scaling
a bitcoin feature
going to met peoples expectations
promoted honestly

trying to keep bitcoins scaling limited, just to push people into LN is bad.
bitcoins network needs to scale whether LN becoms a thing or not.

so having silly people like yourself promoting that bitcoin shouldnt scale because LN solves all the issues is your failing

running a node is cheap
im not the one saying its expensive. i am not the one throwing the empty fears ..
you truly failed at trying to flip the argument.. but have a nice day

your the one that wants people to f**k off the network and use other networks
your the one that claims people wont be able to run full nodes..

funny part is LN is going to do what your flip flopping about
LN masternodes monitoring multiple chains so that atomic swaps can happen makes a node have more challenges than just a bitcoin node.
so using LN and being a msternode for LN is not a solution but the comedy that if LN masternodes wont be a problem, then logic is a node for one coin is less of a problem.. thus by you promoting LN means you subtly admit that blockchains are not a problem

but putting aside the comedy of "nodes monitoring 3-5 coins is ok but monitoring one coin is costly"

the real concern people have is they dont want to have to put funds into a vaulted lockup and then only transact when another party is online to agree on moving funds. if they have available funds to move in their channels on your behalf..

in bitcoin
you dont need to be a full node. you dont need to wait for a particular node to be online to transact. you dont have to hope the other person has balance to be part of your payment route...

in LN
to avoid factories. you do need to be a master node. you do have to wait for particular nodes to be online, you do have to hope the other person has balance to be part of your payment route

but have a nice day. oh and please do your research

dont worry about squatter...
.. squatter is only just getting to grips with 2nd party concept of LN 2016 (channel co-signing)
.. ill say it will be another 6 months-2 years before he catches up 3rd party concept of LN 2018 (factories)

market cap doesnt even tell you that.
all market cap tells you is if you take the market cap and divide it by the circulated coins. that at the last trade 2 people agreed that one coin was worth  (cap/circulation=last trade value)

market caps are just a meaningless multiplication of the last trade value(current price).. and thats it

go make an altcoin with a trillion coins. and buy one of those coins for $25
........
bam you instantly flippened the entire crypto economy for just $25

learn that market cap is a meaningless number and that the market cap is NOT a holding of value of billions somewhere

ok under your mindset
instant........
........ IF you have one channel open with a well connected node/hub (custodian)
...... IF said node is online
.....IF the other conncted routes are online
...IF the destination is online
.IF said nodes has value available to route for you

actually USE LN
actually listen to LN devs
actually see its not a simple one channel open everything is fluffy cloud perfect

........ IF you have one channel open with a well connected node/hub (custodian)
...... IF said node is online
.....IF the other conncted routes are online
...IF the destination is online
.IF said nodes has value available to route for you

actually USE LN
actually listen to LN devs
actually see its not a simple one channel open everything is fluffy cloud perfect

and to any one thats actually open minded
squatter is saying he visions LN where people are vaulting up with centralised hubs

A. median is not the most commonly used number!!
1,1,1,1,1,5,11,11,11,11,11   median =5 but is used only once
plus on a 5seat bus wont get you a seat...
by using average 5.9 would be a case that i get ahead of you in the queue

median is not a middle "value" of a bunch of numbers.. median doesnt even count the values
its just the middle position.
you cant use position metric to work out a best value..

B. no one said everyone.. but it shouldnt exclude a certain class of people.
i guess your greed of wanting bitcoin only for the privileged out weighs the old ethos of open borderless unbanked..
anyway
show me how LN fits the concept of bitcoin
"   A  purely   peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online
payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution.   Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending"

1. directly from one party to another = no routing, no hubs, no custodians, no factories
2. without going through a financial institution = no hubs/custodians/factories
3. benefit lost if a trusted third party is still required = no factories/custodians/hubs

and dont get me started on the "control of ownership".. you wont win

C. an example of a fee formula thats not just network broad "everyone pays more so everyone should use LN" u ask.. well:

your using median.. thats so much fail on you
4,4,5,8,16
your median is 5
average is 7.4
so your under estimating.. (your pink fluffy clouding numbers)
EG
if there was only 5 seats on a bus and the bus had a 'bid for seat' system where by 10people offered
4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,8,16

these people will get to sit down
5,5,5,8,16
these wont
4,4,4,5,5
so if you looked at a median and seen so far median is 5 and you paid 5. you would have been at the back of the queue of the people that paid 5 so you as an 11th person would be part of the 4,4,4,5,5,5 lot that wont get a seat
where as by going for average 7.4 i would have jumped the queue your stuck in and i would have got a seat
5,5,7.4,8,16
leaving you and another 5 payer waiting for the next bus, HOPING to get on
4,4,4,5,5,5,5

then 10 further fresh people see the average is now 8.28
4,4,4,5,5,5,5 + 8,8,8,9,9,9,9,9,16,16,32,32
guess what
9,16,16,32,32
get on the bus... and your still waiting

secondly, LACK of a fee priority mechanism* , causes EVERYONE to pay more
(that is designed to cost an individual more if they spam tx's)
thirdly having to rely on a website to tell you what the best estimate of fee should be
and having and a node that doesnt easily tell people the bytes of a transaction to even use the estimate is not good practice.

EG if everyone sees 1028sats as the suggestion. not everyone will get in a block because everyones just sheep following a estimate. as shown in example above

the "free market" of a fee market is not helpful. its actually harmful
a proper fee formulae needs to come back in play that actually treats people individually based on their circumstances...
and here is a thing that LN greed lovers will love. a proper fee formulae IN BITCOIN will help those that dont need LN(non spammers have cheap fee ONCHAIN) but also really push those that would fit the LN NICHE to use LN(EXPENSIVE FEE onchain)..
the ridiculousness of a spammer pushing up fee's for everyone is not logical, ethical, economical.. its just greed to persuade people to not enjoy using bitcoin

if everyone paid 4cents everyone wont get "fast" transacting

plus your using the same lame argument that it can cost you as little as 10cents to make a cup of coffee at home. so expect to pay that for all coffee no matter where you go


are you watching too many of them 1980's oxfam videos with specifically chosen background music to play on harp strings
you do know that things are not like the 1980's
yea no one is going to spend $600 on an iphone.. but there are cheaper smartphones people have. oh and as for no access to internet/cellular service.. maybe you need to research Mpesa. and countries which skipped passed landlines and decades of 54k, 0.5mb-5mb broadband, fibre..  yep skipped all that and moved straight to 4g/5g

and as for your mindset that bitcoin should only be for developed countries and rich people.. thats putting up barriers of entry and excluding people.
those that would actually benefit from bitcoin the most are the unbanked.
oh and please dont rebutt that they should lock value up and use multisig factories(LN). as thats just the same to them as opening a bank account (once you wash away the pink fluffy buzzwords)

P.S i am a whit brit with hoards of btc. but even i can be open to those not in my situation. just a shame you cant.


again median LOL.. you have no clue..


im not the one saying bitcoin is bad. but those saying
bitcoin cant scale
bitcoin wont work for X,Y,Z.
need to push people off bitcoins network
need to innovate other networks as there is no point innovating bitcoin network

are the ones saying bitcoin is bad.
...
lets get to the point. i understand that you thinking 20cents is reasonable, because your greed is HOPING that if you get LUCKY to be a factory you can charge upto 19cents and still be seen as cheaper..
but pushing bitcoin networks to a "its ok to be expensive for millions of people" is not open barrierless mindset. thats just selfish hope of greed

having the mindset of LN promoters who want
bitcoin fee's to go up
to want people to move off the bitcoin network
users to not have 100% control but have to rely on co-signers being online
users to have to close out to a factory(not self broadcast back to bitcoin)
where the factory is incentivised to keep people in LN

is not having a positive bitcoin mindset

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transaction-fees-usd?timespan=30days
$48,000 - $125,000 a day
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions?timespan=30days
226,000 - 300,000 a day
=21cents - 41cents a transaction

as for "not exactly expensive". im guessing your ignorant to the part of the planet where under 20cents is an hours labour
think rationally.
if people have to pay an hours labour just in fees. they wont see an advantage of it compared to mpesa and other things.
if it costs more an hours labour just to vault up crypto old bankerer-esq co-sign business models.. why bother


by you calling it that. just shows how little you have learned in the last 2 years+ of chances to research the reality.
so i doubt pointing you in the direction of
  multiple ways to scale BITCOIN(not other networks)
  showing you LN's flaws
would convince you..
seems too many people are stuck just wanting LN positive promotional material to be spread about

i have travelled the world, and instead of carrying around a tin can of pink paint to draw fluffy clouds. i actually listen to normal peoples real thinking of stuff.(aswell as tenical people.. but the main thing is listening to people that LN wants to adopt)
you would be surprised at how many people and businesses i have got to adopt BITCOIN(not other networks) by revealing the negatives and positives of both bitcoin and other networks.

those who only spew out the HOPES of positives, are the ones that end up just sounding like snake oil salesmen

i also do my own research away from the fluffy cloud promotional material of buzzwords and actually look behind the curtain and look under the rug to see whats hiding and not being said..
i think critically about the realistic stuff. not just hopes and prayers and dreams of the over promised promotional material.

but if you read my last posts 4tb hard drives are not millions of dollars. nodes wont/dont have to be servers
99.9% of LN users are and never were even going to be fullnode users. so dont even attempt to play the fullnode card.
bitcoin doesnt need 99.9% of users being fullnodes either

but bitcoin does let users have 100% control to spend funds to any address without worry of:
if others will route raid their funds
is the destination online at same time as the route at the same time as the co-signer.
amungst other issues LN will always have

to all those who still have all hopes on LN
here is chrisdecker. one of the lead LN developers himself saying this
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=540

..
as for SCALING bitcoin. there are many many ways that wont cause fee increases nor the empty argument of "gigabytes by midnight"

funny part segwit is not a scaling thing.
you cant re-segwit a segwit.
segwit is not better at byte per tx compared to pre sgwit.
segwit has not and wont get passed a 600k a day transaction count,(numbers known about since 2010)
segwits real purpose was to have a tx format to be a gateway that makes bitcoin able to vault funds up so that the separate network called LN can peg 12 decimal payment tokens to. (litecoin, vertcoin and others done so too. so LN is not a "bitcoin" sole feature/layer) its a separate network for multiple coins

its the same business idea of the 18th century

and its not about hating or loving LN
LN is a different network.
its about actually taking away the fluffy cloud utopian dream of LN. and actually thinking about the bitcoin network and how LN promoters are saying the bitcoin networks fee's need to go up, bitcoin networks transaction per day throughput needs to not increase. all so the promoters can HOPE for income streams on another network

a. no one rationally is saying bitcoin needs to grow by "gigabytes by midnight" (thats the distraction of  empty fear argument)
b. 256gb is the size of a fingernail. not a server. and 256gb is 9 years of block data, not one day
c. a 4tb hard drive costs 1 week groceries but copes with 16mb blocks for 5 years (usual average time people upgrade hardware)
d. telling people to get off the bitcoin network, bitcoin network needs expensive transactions is not "helping bitcoin adoption"
e. using a non-blockchain network requiring to wait for co-signer to be available just to transact is NOT "new technology"
f. the 1mb base block was a temporary restriction which was even mentioned by bitcoins creator to remove it by 2011
g. right now removing the witness scale factor to allow true utility of 4mb can be done without controversial forks
h. scaling bitcoin blocks can be done progressively without years of dev decisions, but automatically adjusts like difficulty adjusts
i. by saying non-blockchain payments are as secure as blockchain payments. is basically saying blockchains are not needed

the echo chamber of LN promoters. do not understand the issue of LN. many dont even look at stats, dont run scenarios. and dont speak to average joe, many have not ven used LN under critical mindsets
all they see is the selfish hope of greed, and emphasis HOPE that the promoters will get rich being hubs/factories

but in the end if LN becomes popular. LN causes bitcoin network to NEED scaling to reduce on/off ramp bottlenecks of LN
but in the end if LN doesnt become popular. bitcoin network to NEED scaling just to stop bottlenecks

what people promoting non-blockchain networks are forgetting is the whole point of blockchains.

1. you assume that offloading alot of bitcoin utility onto the separate network will happen.
got any stats to back that up??
here goes:
take visa stats in a world of fiat, people only use visa ~42 times a month. thats only once or twice a day. in bitcoin world with less merchants, people do not transact daily.
so real life users that do real life bitcoin transactions dont use crypto 20-100 times a month
the reality is that people do maybe transactions of lets say 5-20 a MONTH.(many do only a few a year)

2. take LN as the 2016 concept 2nd party control (without custodial factory3rd party(goldfortknox analogy)), whereby to have reliant connections. you are going to need 5 channels with different people. and your counterpart will need 5 channels. (incase people are offline, incase people raid funds of one channel, blah blah blah)

the amount of data onchain per user per month(because most wont want to put life savings in and locked up for life, they will in reality only budget 2-4 weeks) means about 10-20 transactions a month onchain just to get in and out of LN

reality is if they would usually spend 5-20 times normally.. but need 10-20 transactions to vault and unvault from LN there wont be much 'offloading' utility gained via LN anyway.

3. plus those who want to retain 100% control. and dont want to have to split funds, pre-plan spending habits, dont want to worry about route raids, dont want to have to worry about whos online, etc.. will have many people not using LN at all
after all LN for "convenience" ends up becoming exactly like fiat. so those loving crypto because its nothing like fiat will not want to go back to fiatesq payments.. they will just say whats the point of crypto if the only way to use it is to do the same thing as fiat

2. under the factory concept of LN (fortknoxbank business model) 3rd party trying to keep people away from returning to bitcoin.. (yea i know you will plaster all the positives.) but you said it yourself third party control=bad

under old non factory LN concept is 2party control. which is not 1st party control. especially when that second party. and any party along the route. and even the destination will all need to be online and accept the payments. makes what was a idea of no party, no permission system(bitcoin network) has people promoting the future of crypto is only viable via 2party/3party control on a different network
all because of the EMPTY fear of scaling bitcoin

4. i say its an empty fear. because if you feel that being a masternode of multiple coin networks is not a fear.. then default logic is that being a node of 1 chain is less of a fear. so saying LN wil be great because nodes can be master nodes. defeats the argument that bitcoin only nodes should be feared

5. the last 3 years of delays and excuses have been that bitcoin cant scale.. that LN will be this thing that will take away a majority of utility away from bitcoin so bitcoin wont need to scale.
but the realistic thing is that just to get people into LN will bottleneck bitcoin if bitcoin continues to be delayed in scaling. if LN takes off.. or if it doesnt.
as i also said LN wont offset much utility. hardly anyone does 10-20 transactions on bitcoin each month to require a non factory concept of LN. but without scaling bitcoin. people will not want to return to bitcoin

6. dont get me wrong i understand the NICHE for certain usecases.. but the bitcoin network CAN scale, and SHOULD scale whether LN takes off or not.
because LN is not the solution that will help much in the end. its just a way to lock coins up. keep bitcoin innovation down and try getting users to give up on bitcoin so that custodians can grab bitcoin while letting users end up thinking returning to bitcoin network(100% control of funds) is not worth the effort.

7. and as for your failing of using the violin playing/harp string plucking that bitcoin needs high onchain fee's to pay pools...
i laugh at you.
a. because having 16,000 tx onchain paying 25cents is the same as having 4000 tx onchain paying $1.. you dont need to force fee's up. and force transaction scale down to "help miners"
instead having the blockchain scale and allow more transactions onchain means more total combined fee, without needing individuals to pay more. makes people LOVE bitcoin MORE
b. making individuals pay more will make then LOVE bitcoin LESS
c. i know you hope you get to be a factory and hope you will earn some millisats by promoting LN... but you wont. it will be coinbase, circle and other custodians that will get that honour. so take away your personal goals of getting rich via LN and start actually thinking about the bitcoin network

8. think outside your personal greed and desire of hopes of being a factory.
imagine millions of people that get paid 5cents an hour. they wont want to have to spend multiple hours of labour onchain to lock funds up or use bitcoin (your mindset that bitcoin SHOULDNT SCALE and SHOULD raise fees)
they wont want to then find out they need someone else to not only be online but agree, sign for their payments.

9. and if the only thing you learned from this is that LN wont offload much transactions.. do not do the foolish thing of trying to twist it into, 'then ln is no harm'.. transactions count offloading is not the same as removing VALUE. remember the greed mindset. move people away from blockchains, remove value away from blockchains increase costs of blockchains by persuading/presuming/promoting that custodial/co-signed accounts are the future

LN is not the same 100% self control ethos as bitcoin.
LN is not the same network as bitcoin
LN is not the same push funds without permission as bitcoin
LN is not the same 24/7 always open network as bitcoin

problem with the gold-cult of the 18th century who made profit from vaulting up gold.. is that them small groups took gold from people and the gold cultists became the banks of 21st century.

LN is the same business plan as 18th century, "dont play with gold its too 'weighted' play with co-managed accounts an unaudited promissory notes for convenience...

i still laugh at the 2016 LNconcept:18th century banks "dont worry all promissory notes ar 100% backed by gold"
i still laugh at the 2018 LNfactory:20th century banks "dont worry bank notes are convenient even if you cant get gold out easily"


the funny part is all these unicorns promoting LN buddy group(behaving LIKE gold-cult).. are people that wont be the actual factory CEO(bank owners) that become the actual "gold-cult"
the real bank owner "gold-cult" would be coinbase, blockstream, circle.. all subsidiaries of DCG.CO
they just think if they kiss blockstream ass, then they will get hired by the real playa's